Abbot Joseph’s Homily for Cistercian Founders

What is it about monastic
reforms that renders them (relatively speaking) short-lived and apparently
unsustainable? This question is especially pertinent when you consider that at
the heart of these reforms is the resolve to turn from sin and seek holiness
through an ever deepening union with God. In other words, the essence of reform
would seem to have an inbuilt momentum towards ever greater virtue and
spiritual maturity. And so what intervenes to interrupt and then derail most
(if not all) monastic reforms? Is it because the goal of holiness and a life of
virtue is seen to be ultimately obtainable only by the few; or is it because
the demands it places on those who set out on this spiritual path are found to
be simply too great to sustain over the long haul?

Although there is no simple
answer, it is well to remember that it is not a monastery or an order that
undertakes a reform, but the individuals making up monasteries and orders who
actually reform. Successful reforms (even when not permanent) have thus
typically drawn together monks or nuns who share a common vision of monastic
life and a united commitment to more authentic Christian living. Thus our Cistercian
founders realized the need to leave Molesme and carry out their reform at
Cîteaux because not all at Molesme shared their fervent desire to rekindle the
spirit of early monasticism.

However, as we know all too
well, our spiritual lives don’t flow smoothly and uninterruptedly. Much like the
history of monasticism we experience periods of greater fervor and fidelity
alternating with varying degrees of spiritual mediocrity—and even regression
that eventually require a personal reform and recommitment to our spiritual
quest. Presumably those early Cistercians were not immune from these same spiritual
vacillations, trials, and temptations that are integral to monastic life. And
so, perhaps, the initially imperceptible beginning of decline began when one or
more at Cîteaux began to succumb to the “wear and tear” of the journey and
gradually surrendered the shared vision and wholehearted commitment that had
first inspired their noble endeavor.

These early chinks in their
spiritual armor may then have opened them to a gradual infiltration by those cunning
forces of evil bent on the destruction of this upstart monastery in the
wilderness that was threatening their domain. And perhaps, too, the subtlety of
this demonic infiltration ensured that a spiritual decline was not really noticeable
until it was too late and the common vision was already lost and the shared commitment
compromised. That the so-called “Golden Age” of Cîteaux lasted as long as it
did can, perhaps, be attributed to those early spiritual giants of the order
whose holiness compensated for those who steadily lost their initial fervor and
surrendered to compromise.

Our own recent efforts to
rejuvenate our community and renew monastic life here at Holy Cross will thus
be assisted by pondering these sobering lessons of history. Accordingly, two
things are crucial if our efforts are to bear fruit: The first is the need to
continue working towards, and then sustaining, a shared vision and common
commitment. Otherwise, our efforts will founder on the treacherous rocks of
individualism and inauthentic eremitic pursuits. The second is that we need to
remain engaged in our own individual spiritual journeys and not succumb to the unremitting
temptations to give up or settle for mediocrity and compromise. To this end we all need to give our all and encourage one another by word and
example. And so in the words of the Letter to the Hebrews, we must consider how to rouse one another to love and
good works.And in doing this we need to remember that this is not just
until our situation improves and stabilizes, but each one of us will need to
persevere in these efforts until we breathe our final breath and hand on the
baton to the next generation of Cistercians.

Related

Comments

It was common that social problems currently encountered could be attributed to “These Modern Times”. The inaccuracy to this thought is that EVERY AGE CONSIDERS ITSELF MODERN! There is then a constant progression of decades which are so-called, norms which are contemporary, or “Modern”. It almost appears as though humanity can not recognize the duplication of history.